Justice Minister Paul Goldsmith on mission to ease court backlogs

• Barrister blames the court backlog partly on self-representation, calling for instructional videos for litigants
• Justice Minister Paul Goldsmith is open to suggestions from those at the coalface
• Delays in court processes are significant, affecting family court cases and sometimes children's access to parents

A lawyer with decades of experience blames the current backlog in court cases partly on increasing numbers of people representing themselves.

And he says it's hurting others.

Nelson barrister John Sandston now wants to see those involved in self-represented lawsuits complete an educational course which, at a minimum, might include a brief instructional video on the court process.

Sandston says it might be similar to what juries are shown after they're empanelled.

During a visit to Nelson this week, Justice Minister Paul Goldsmith told NZME that he was "very open" to proposals or suggestions from people at the coalface over improving access to justice and outcomes for victims.

He said Sandston's idea "seemed reasonable", alongside others already in place like the new digital case management system.

Te Au Reka is a joint initiative of the Ministry of Justice and the judiciary to streamline the heavily paper-based administration of cases.

Goldsmith said the Family Court would see it first, leading to a "dramatic impact" in terms of the general timeliness of the process.

"It just means that everything will be online, instead of people rocking up with big paper files."

He said it would also help to make better use of court resources. If, for example, the Nelson court was "flat out" and there were judges "twiddling their thumbs in Invercargill" they might step in to help out with any overloads.

Sandston said delays were partly the result of lingering Covid-related matters, including cases that had fallen over at the last minute.

He believed it was compounded by increasing numbers who for several reasons, including cost, chose to represent themselves in court.

Earlier this month a judge in the Whangārei District Court was openly critical of a defendant's approach in defending himself at a jury trial, calling it a waste of his day in court.

"While you're the most benign, polite man and conducted yourself with dignity at your trial, you really didn't pose a defence and really, my day in court was a waste of time," Judge Philip Rzepecky told cannabis advocate Brian Borland.

Similar has happened in Nelson, where judges have "bent over backwards" to accommodate the wishes of those intent on running what one judge called a "potpourri of legal concepts".

In one case, Megan Gordon went as far as calling the judge a liar, using her first name and speaking over her during the defended hearing in which she represented herself, and was eventually sent to prison.

Sandston said not all lawyers agreed his idea was a good one. Feedback so far suggested they believed it might inhibit access to justice, and people would simply refuse to take instruction.

He said people had a constitutional right to represent themselves in court and he wasn't suggesting that should be removed.

"No one's saying that you can't appear in court, but all you have to do is turn up and watch a video.

"What I'm saying is, they need help before going into a fixture because the reality is, it's hurting people."

Sandston said delays in family court cases worried him the most.

"When there's an allegation of a safety concern you have supervised contact until the court says it's safe to do otherwise, but you can wait months for that.

"And of course, that's disadvantaging poor little kids."

Goldsmith said that speeding up court processes, which already stood to be a "massive systemic challenge" ranked alongside his priorities of reducing the number of victims of violent crime and the number of serious repeat youth offenders.

An initial, and controversial move was to remove legal aid funding for section 27 reports, known as Cultural Reports.

The change, which drew widespread criticism from opposition parties, academics and from within the New Zealand Law Society, was tied up in the Legal Services Amendment Bill which came into effect in March.

Goldsmith said legal aid funding for these reports had grown a "cottage industry" where spending had increased from about $40,000 in 2017, to more than $7 million in the last financial year, and was set to grow higher.

He said the money saved would be redirected back into legal aid services.

Lawyer Steven Zindel, whose practice operates in the legal aid space, said another reason for delays in the court system was the shortage of lawyers, especially family lawyers.

He wants to see a government-backed programme that supports graduate lawyers, as a way to retain them, a bit like an apprenticeship scheme.

This might be through a private-public partnership, where graduates were supported to work in areas of need while they trained.

Goldsmith said the legal aid commissioner is open to reviewing processes and this should "certainly be considered".

Goldsmith, a trained historian whose interest in justice stemmed from involvement by members of his wider family, said legislation was one tool for actioning change, and technology was another.

A discussion was under way on ways to encourage more use of audiovisual technology, to improve access to courts.

"There are a million other things you can do in justice, but it seems to me there hasn't been sufficient focus on the nuts and bolts mechanisms of making sure that people can move on with their lives in a timely fashion," he said.

Sandston said history proved laws could change to create more efficiencies in the court system, and that people could get used to them.

He cited the amended Evidence Act that restricted defendants from being able to personally cross-examine complainants in certain types of criminal or civil proceedings.

"They still have the right to question, but they have to give their questions in advance to what's called a Lawyer to Assist (the court)."

Goldsmith warned the justice system was "incredibly expensive" and under pressure from not only within, but from competing desires in other areas.

"Money is tight and we've got enormous challenges," he said.

Goldsmith said costs might also be reduced by cutting down on the "excessive" bureaucratic processes that take a lot of time.

"That's a regular question I ask of the officials.

"I go into the office every day and say, 'let's be more radical in our thinking and suggestions', because there is a kind of ... I wouldn't say inertia, but things have been done in a certain way for a very long time."

Goldsmith said his aim in the future would be to end his time as Justice Minister knowing that people had gained access to more timely justice.

"I think that would be a very good outcome."

* This story originally appeared in the New Zealand Herald.